Political Dynamics of the Second Session of the 118th Congress
Matt Glassman | February 5, 2024
The first session of the 118th Congress was historically unproductive. Only 35 measures were signed into law, with only the Fiscal Responsibility Act and the Defense Authorization Act of significant note. Several major items on the agenda—border security, foreign aid, tax extenders—saw no floor action, while others—the Farm bill, FAA reauthorization, the FY24 appropriations— were patched over with temporary extensions when it became obvious there was no chance to complete work by deadline.
Divided party control of the chambers had set policy expectations low to begin with, but partisan bickering took on innovative forms in 2023. The little-used Question of Privilege in the House was put into regular use by partisans seeking to reprimand other Members, often for things that seemed trivial by historical standards. Three Members were successfully censured, the most since 1870. And multiple impeachment investigations were opened in committee against executive branch officials, including President Biden.
The Republican House majority, hampered by a narrow margin of control and serious divisions within the conference, battled openly over the chamber policy agenda. The House Freedom Caucus aggressively used hardball tactics on the floor to frustrate the leadership. An all-time record number of special rules were defeated on the floor, and the most measures were defeated on final passage since 2010. This culminated in the removal of Speaker McCarthy in October, and a three week period of limbo, as Republicans struggled to elect a replacement.
As we begin the second session of the 118th Congress, many of the same dynamics that contributed to the gridlock and partisanship of the first session will continue to operate. Several new dynamics—notably the presidential election and the spread of hardball tactics in the House—will also come into play.
Presidential Politics Begins to Cast a Shadow
The formal opening of the 2024 presidential primaries in January has already reshaped congressional politics. With president Biden and former president Trump both seemingly cruising to renomination, the outline of the 2024 general election campaign has come into relief earlier than in other presidential cycles.
Trump’s solid victories in Iowa and New Hampshire not only confirmed expectations that he would easily win the nomination, but also unleashed a large wave of congressional endorsements in both chambers. More importantly, it refocused a large number of House and Senate Republicans around Trump’s campaign agenda. Whatever influence Trump had over the congressional GOP agenda in 2023, it will undoubtedly be higher during the second session.
This is natural, and occurs in both parties every cycle. While presidential candidates are creatures of their party coalitions and often constrained by the agenda and interests of the party, they are also individual politicians with their own positions, priorities, and styles. Once nominated for office, presidential candidates in the modern age become the de facto party leaders, and legislators necessarily defer to the candidate and their campaign on both policy and strategy.
Trump’s convincing wins in the early primary states had an immediate effect on the ongoing negotiations over border security legislation. In a private Senate GOP caucus lunch, leader McConnell noted that the politics of border security had changed, because Trump wants to run on an immigration platform, and “we don’t want to do anything to undermine him.” What was once seen as a likely deal—perhaps even a favorable one for Republicans–now seems in serious jeopardy.
This reflects a classic dilemma of legislative politics: do you want a policy or an issue to run on? The Republicans could likely get a favorable deal on border security right now, with president Biden seemingly desperate for a bipartisan fix to the current problems. But that would undermine the Trump campaign’s top issue, and perhaps cost Republicans the presidency. If they scuttle the policy negotiations, it might help yield an even bigger prize: unified control of the government in 2025.
Choosing an issue over a policy has also become an increasingly tempting strategy in recent decades due to widening partisan polarization and high party competition for both the House and Senate. With both chambers seemingly up for grabs almost every cycle, minority opposition parties are loathe to give the president bipartisan victories, for fear of it ruining their chance of retaking the chamber.
Narrow margins and the spread of factional hardball
The key institutional features of the 118th Congress are (1) divided partisan chamber control; and (2) historically small majority party margins. Both of these will continue to structure the politics of the 118th Congress. Democrats continue to hold a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, and the GOP margin in the House is currently 219-212, with 4 vacancies. George Santos’ NY-03 seat will be the first to be filled with a February 13 special election, with the Democrat leading in the polls.
As became evident in the first session last year, the narrow House margin empowered any small handful of GOP Members to block partisan floor action on special rules or final passage of party line votes. After Speaker McCarthy angered the House Freedom Caucus by cutting a deal with President Biden and the Democrats on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, they essentially withdrew from the uneasy procedural majority coalition they had agreed to after bargaining with McCarthy during the Speaker election in January. From June to October, the HFC took down multiple special rules the leadership put on the floor, ultimately leading to McCarthy’s removal in October. Kicking off the second session of the 118th Congress, the House failed its first such procedural vote of the year on January 10, the third roll call vote taken.
Consequently, both Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson have had to adjust strategies for the passage of bills. With the HFC refusing to vote for rules on deals they deem insufficiently conservative, the leadership has been forced to move the legislation on the floor by suspending the rules. Unlike other methods of passing legislation in the House which require a simple majority vote, suspension of the rules necessitates bipartisan agreement, due to its requirement of a ⅔ vote for passage. In a significant break from typical congressional practice, the list of bills to be brought up under suspension, normally full of non-controversial and/or minor legislation, has now become the main procedural vehicle for negotiated compromises on must-pass legislation.
There’s also evidence that the HFC hardball tactics are spreading. During the past decade, it has been conventional wisdom that the HFC had a monopoly on the willingness to buck the party and play hardball on the House floor. But now we are seeing a moderate faction of the GOP dispense with party loyalty when it comes in conflict with factional goals.
This happened for the first time on the floor votes for Representative Jordan for Speaker, who won the GOP nomination in conference but was defeated on the floor by a coalition of moderate and appropriations committee rebels. And it happened this past week, when New York Republicans threatened to (and temporarily did) defeat a special rule on an unrelated bill because they were angry about the lack of SALT provisions in the proposed tax extender deal.
These tactics have not typically helped the HFC adjust policy rightward—in fact, the tactic usually backfired as leadership was forced to bargain with Democrats when the HFC denied them a partisan majority—but it served the personal politics of HFC members who bemoan both compromise and the deal-cutting GOP leaders. It’s unclear if the same will be true for the moderates. It doesn’t make a ton of sense to be blocking your own party’s messaging bills, which is what these unrelated rules takedowns amount to, but it does signal that the HFC monopoly on legislative hardball may be coming to an end.
What Happens Next
There’s no shortage of major questions right now on the policy agenda for the second session. In addition to the ongoing negotiations over potential border security legislation mentioned above, Congress also has the administration request for foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan awaiting action; a bipartisan deal on taxes passing the House and headed to a potential vote in the Senate; and the expiration of the current continuing resolution for the FY24 appropriations coming up next month.
All of these questions will be handled through the lens of divided government and the narrow majorities in both chambers, which necessarily will require the policies to be bipartisan in order to pass. Whether they do pass, however, will also largely depend on how the parties and factions perceive their impact on the presidential election, as well as how the GOP leadership decides to manage internal party factional disputes that are increasingly just below the surface on every issue.
Categories: 118th Congress, Congressional Update, Media Center, Revise & Extend, Updates